|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 20, 2011 19:41:04 GMT -5
Money being spent on war taxes means less for church tithes. Another misconception, or perhaps a modern prejudice... actually tithing was taken off the top of income, BEFORE any other expenses... so whether a king fought someone or not, his contributions to the church were the same. Also, most of the European churches from the Middle ages were, at least in part, built as a form of penance, paid for either in part or in whole by donations from magnates to help atone for their wars. No wars, less churches. Woo, late reply! *Ahem* Wars are expensive, if one happens to drag on long enough, then tithes may diminish somewhat. After all, you can't donate what you don't have in the first place. Not to mention, any Christian armies fighting each other are Christian armies that aren't fighting heathens and annexing themselves some more thithe-paying land. In any case, my point is the church was hardly concerned for the welfare of the average person, its aversion to war between Christians was for the exact same reason a typical king dislikes it when a couple of his dukes decide to have a spat. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 20, 2011 21:34:37 GMT -5
There certainly was a lot of corruption in the church in the middle ages, and it's true that an organization like the Catholic church will tend to act in its own best interests, but I think it's awfully speculative and probably inaccurate to say that the church didn't care about people's welfare, or that its opposition to war was only about money and power, and had nothing to do with compassion or aversion to violence.
I know it's awfully tempting to say, "Church bad! Middle ages bad because of church." But I don't think it was anywhere near that simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 20, 2011 22:43:20 GMT -5
There certainly was a lot of corruption in the church in the middle ages, and it's true that an organization like the Catholic church will tend to act in its own best interests, but I think it's awfully speculative and probably inaccurate to say that the church didn't care about people's welfare, or that its opposition to war was only about money and power, and had nothing to do with compassion or aversion to violence. Massive organisations like the Catholic Church have proven time and time again that without oversight or accountability of some sort, they'll only act in ways that increases their wealth and power. I see to reason to view the Catholic Church any differently. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 20, 2011 22:48:52 GMT -5
I do re-enactment based fighting, not HEMA, however, I do like to pass on advice: First of all, what kind of spear shafts are you using and how long are they and who's making your spear points? I haven't participated in any of the spear trials. I only do rapier so far. Can you define what you mean by 'rapier'? A 16th C version or an 18th C version? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 20, 2011 23:04:40 GMT -5
Pardon me for being a bit off topic, but as far as fashion goes the 20's have always been a favorite of mine:
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 23:51:40 GMT -5
Yes, if I could reintroduce only two things to male fashion today, it would be high boots and dress swords. Indeed. The point at which standards started slipping was when a gentleman would no longer go out with his sword strapped to his hip. QFmuthafrickinT |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 23:54:02 GMT -5
True, but also false. As you pointed out, the Pope did have some say-so. As you pointed out, the Church successfully prevented mass-war in Europe at the height of it's power. Which is to say, the Pope had some power over 'Christendom' during the Middle Ages. Some popes might have even considered themselves in charge of 'Christendom'. No, the Pope was in charge of the religious side, he was in no way in charge of a the country, pretty much the same as today. He had no earthly powers to command people to rise against a king, for example. I'm not exactly sure what you're point is. Yes, the Pope's power declined during the Renaissance period. As you accurately pointed out, I was correct when I impled that there were no wars of independence in the middle ages; only the renaissance. Therefore...? So the two Scottish Wars of Independence didn't happen then? Am pretty sure they did, in 1297 - 1330 and 1332 - 1357, which is in the High Medieval Period.[/quote]I'm not sure what Lt Fred's point is, (I rarely am), but my own point, was all the mediaeval religious wars were wars of annexation, not independence. There were, of course, myriad secular wars of independence in the period, including the Scottish and Welsh ones. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 23:56:29 GMT -5
I do re-enactment based fighting, not HEMA, however, I do like to pass on advice: First of all, what kind of spear shafts are you using and how long are they and who's making your spear points? I haven't participated in any of the spear trials. I only do rapier so far. My tips for fencing... always keep your point right in the other guy's face, present as small a target to your oponent as possible, and always be prepared to scream and Fleche... no one ever expects it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 20, 2011 23:59:00 GMT -5
Another misconception, or perhaps a modern prejudice... actually tithing was taken off the top of income, BEFORE any other expenses... so whether a king fought someone or not, his contributions to the church were the same. Also, most of the European churches from the Middle ages were, at least in part, built as a form of penance, paid for either in part or in whole by donations from magnates to help atone for their wars. No wars, less churches. Woo, late reply! *Ahem* Wars are expensive, if one happens to drag on long enough, then tithes may diminish somewhat. After all, you can't donate what you don't have in the first place. Not to mention, any Christian armies fighting each other are Christian armies that aren't fighting heathens and annexing themselves some more thithe-paying land. In any case, my point is the church was hardly concerned for the welfare of the average person, its aversion to war between Christians was for the exact same reason a typical king dislikes it when a couple of his dukes decide to have a spat. Thats a very cynical position, and I would suggest it is overly flavoured by modern misconceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Feb 20, 2011 23:59:54 GMT -5
To the weapons discussion, I'm fond of germanic longsword. The stuff they sell on woodenswords.com. That's what I used to practice, and I was MEAN with them (nearly gave one of the guys a concussion because he blocked badly and I cracked him in the skull). I'm rather fond of polearms though. Hammer for me, please, I'd love to cave someone's chest from six feet and still be in melee range.
To the fashion bit: I say bring back the smart dressing in general. Top hats FTW!
|
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 21, 2011 0:00:20 GMT -5
There certainly was a lot of corruption in the church in the middle ages, and it's true that an organization like the Catholic church will tend to act in its own best interests, but I think it's awfully speculative and probably inaccurate to say that the church didn't care about people's welfare, or that its opposition to war was only about money and power, and had nothing to do with compassion or aversion to violence. Massive organisations like the Catholic Church have proven time and time again that without oversight or accountability of some sort, they'll only act in ways that increases their wealth and power. I see to reason to view the Catholic Church any differently. Which is why there was no charity, hospitals, scientific research, or anything else altruistic done by the church whatsoever in the middle ages. I haven't participated in any of the spear trials. I only do rapier so far. Can you define what you mean by 'rapier'? A 16th C version or an 18th C version? 16th (or early 17th, a la Cappo Ferro, even though that's technically out of period for the SCA). |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 0:02:58 GMT -5
There certainly was a lot of corruption in the church in the middle ages, and it's true that an organization like the Catholic church will tend to act in its own best interests, but I think it's awfully speculative and probably inaccurate to say that the church didn't care about people's welfare, or that its opposition to war was only about money and power, and had nothing to do with compassion or aversion to violence. I know it's awfully tempting to say, "Church bad! Middle ages bad because of church." But I don't think it was anywhere near that simple. Indeed. While ALL mediaeval organisations were corrupt by modern standards, it is very, very true to say that the church in the mediaeval period was the ONLY source of humanitarian, medical and charity aid. It is always a mistake to view previous historical periods with modern perspectives. Yes, compared with today, the mediaevl period had some significant negatives. However, in the context of the day, the mediaeval church was one of the brightest beacons carrying the torch of culture and civilisation. Obviously this is Europe we're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 21, 2011 0:42:06 GMT -5
Woo, late reply! *Ahem* Wars are expensive, if one happens to drag on long enough, then tithes may diminish somewhat. After all, you can't donate what you don't have in the first place. Not to mention, any Christian armies fighting each other are Christian armies that aren't fighting heathens and annexing themselves some more thithe-paying land. In any case, my point is the church was hardly concerned for the welfare of the average person, its aversion to war between Christians was for the exact same reason a typical king dislikes it when a couple of his dukes decide to have a spat. Thats a very cynical position, and I would suggest it is overly flavoured by modern misconceptions. ...That's all? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 21, 2011 0:43:40 GMT -5
Massive organisations like the Catholic Church have proven time and time again that without oversight or accountability of some sort, they'll only act in ways that increases their wealth and power. I see to reason to view the Catholic Church any differently. Which is why there was no charity, hospitals, scientific research, or anything else altruistic done by the church whatsoever in the middle ages. To my knowledge, that sort of thing was done for the sake of PR rather then altruistic reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 21, 2011 1:06:30 GMT -5
Pardon me for being a bit off topic, but as far as fashion goes the 20's have always been a favorite of mine: 1820s were great too, at least during the first half of the decade, before the sleeves got ridiculously large:  I'm not fond of the colour, but the overall style is gorgeous.  |
|
